Portland homeless situation

[SLO]

Portland and other west coast urbanites how bad is this for you? Why can't we do anything about it, is it political? West coast weather? Lack of mental health treatment? A little of all of the above.




Columbia Sportswear may close Portland office over death threats, public defecation by homeless people

Columbia Sportswear may be the next business to flee downtown Portland after a series of frightening encounters with the city's homeless population, including car break-ins, human waste dumped by the office's front door and threats to its employees.

In an op-ed piece published earlier this month by The Oregonian, Columbia Sportswear President and CEO Tim Boyle said he is concerned he made a mistake when he opened a headquarters for the company’s Sorel footwear brand downtown, calling the situation "outrageous and unacceptable."

"In fact, I am so concerned about the safety of our employees at the Sorel headquarters that we are taking the next 90 days to re-evaluate our location decision," Boyle wrote.

Since moving the 50 employees downtown, workers immediately reported being harassed and threatened by homeless individuals near the new offices.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/27...ss-people.html

[downtownpdx]

I work downtown, I have a hard time believing the situation for this guy's employees is that dangerous. Maybe these things happened, (but honestly who leaves a laptop out in their car, that's just asking for theft no matter where you are). The homeless situation has worsened, and there's no easy remedy since there are multiple causes - rising housing costs, insufficient mental health programs, etc. It's very sad. But I never feel unsafe downtown, although maybe I'm just in the right places at the right times. I think the actual crime stats for dt are very very low.

But perception is important. And since Portland can't enforce against panhandling, (the courts strike them down as unconstitutional against free speech) or lying down on sidewalks, (discrimination against the homeless since there isn't a shelter bed for every single homeless individual)... we have visible homeless in high traffic areas. I interact with tourists a lot in my job, and there are some comments here and there about the issue, but it's not a major detraction. The mayor is saying there are more shelter beds than ever this year, but it takes a whole collaboration in our communities to deal with the many root causes.

I'll add that while there are plenty of legitimately struggling homeless, there is also a segment of younger, traveling street kids that just hang out and literally don't want the services that are available.

[downtownpdx]

Just noticing the LA job thread, which brought to mind that the unemployment rate in Portland is about 4%. There are not enough people to fill positions in pretty much any industry. So despite a booming economy the homeless situation worsens, which hasn't typically been the case -- homelessness is usually associated with recessions. Sounds to me like more support for mental health, drug treatment, affordable housing and job training is the way to go, rather than $1.4 trillion in tax cuts for large corporations. Exacerbating the gulf between rich and poor is not going to solve this problem.

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

Just noticing the LA job thread, which brought to mind that the unemployment rate in Portland is about 4%. There are not enough people to fill positions in pretty much any industry. So despite a booming economy the homeless situation worsens, which hasn't typically been the case -- homelessness is usually associated with recessions. Sounds to me like more support for mental health, drug treatment, affordable housing and job training is the way to go, rather than $1.4 trillion in tax cuts for large corporations. Exacerbating the gulf between rich and poor is not going to solve this problem.

I read that the city club had spent some time studying this and had put together a pretty comprehensive report. It seems to be getting a lot of attention locally. But this being Portland, the workers' paradise.....

Portland, OR – A study originally commissioned by the City Club of Portland has been released, but not by City Club.

Last December, Willamette Week reports City Club put together a committee to look at Oregon’s addiction service offerings. The committee met regularly, and turned in their report in July. But that report was never released.

According to WW, on November 10th, City Club members received a letter from President Lisa Watson, explaining why City Club was not going to release the report.

“As part of the Board of Governors’ standard review of the research process, it came to our attention that every member of the committee was white,” Watson said.

“While we have no doubt that the committee members entered into this research project in good faith and with all best intentions, it’s clear that an all-white committee makes our research vulnerable to significant and substantive racial bias.”

Members of committee felt the report needed to be released anyway, and did so Tuesday, November 14th. Click here to read the full study.

http://www.kxl.com/addiction-study-r...lub-says-wont/

The report:
https://stateofreform.com/wp-content...-Recovery3.pdf

I contend that legal weed in addition to the absence of deadly-cold winter weather attracts people who value the effects of drugs over sturdy shelter. Add those to the ranks of the ones who are homeless due to being mentally ill, have them compete for space and resources, and there you go.

[JoePDX]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

Just noticing the LA job thread, which brought to mind that the unemployment rate in Portland is about 4%. There are not enough people to fill positions in pretty much any industry. So despite a booming economy the homeless situation worsens, which hasn't typically been the case -- homelessness is usually associated with recessions. Sounds to me like more support for mental health, drug treatment, affordable housing and job training is the way to go, rather than $1.4 trillion in tax cuts for large corporations. Exacerbating the gulf between rich and poor is not going to solve this problem.

I live off 68th and Halsey in Northeast Portland and this summer the supposed "homeless" set up tents off the freeway exit in the green space between the off ramp and the freeway! The City does nothing about it. Because it is Oregon dept. of transportation property they are the people we are supposed to call to complain to. Now we have gotten more action from the Oregon sheriffs department. They defecate on the property, litter the property with their bicycle parts, cans, and trash and the City does not seem to care, yet the residents who live nearby and pay taxes get to see their property values degraded and their neighborhood looking like crap. I found out that a lot of these people are from Seattle. The point is, if you cant afford to live in Portland why are you here? I would like to live on the upper east side of Manhattan or the beaches of the French Riviera, but because I CANT AFFORD TO LIVE THERE you don't see me pitching my tent there. And speaking of taxes...we pay an ARTS tax every year to the City so kids can finger paint and study limbo dancing but the City cant provide its Citizens with a clean environment and neighborhoods and the ability to keep their property values intact? Something is seriously wrong with priorities.

[mhays]

Portland's problem might be worse than Seattle's (or worse per capita), but the issues are similar. At the core, we don't crack down enough on bad behavior. The lack of funding for services and shelters is also a big component.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by SLO

Portland and other west coast urbanites how bad is this for you? Why can't we do anything about it, is it political? West coast weather? Lack of mental health treatment? A little of all of the above.

I suspect San Francisco is in competition for the worst case of this problem.


http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uplo...AL-6.21.17.pdf

But these persons aren't simply homeless. Many of them are mentally ill and/or severely substance abusing. And also they are anti-social in their attitude and behavior. Possibly this is a manifestation of resentment toward society and the housed because of their condition. I can't say, but it is manifested as breaking all manner of laws and rules about public behavior in ways that aren't actually necessary fromdefecating in the middle of busy streets in mid-afternoon (there are plenty of secluded places they could do this) to sprawling on busy sidewalks shooting up to blocking those sidewalks with tents and other camping gear such that they are impassable, forcing even the disabled into the street to get around them.

Why can't we do anything about it is the question of the year.

Despite money and effort, homelessness in SF as bad as ever
By Heather KnightJune 26, 2017 Updated: September 7, 2017 1:24pm

On the face of it, San Francisco’s homeless problem should have improved dramatically over the past year.

After all, last summer Mayor Ed Lee formed the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing to focus on the city’s most perplexing problem.

The city spent $275 million on homelessness and supportive housing in the fiscal year that ends Friday, up from $241 million the year before. Starting Saturday, that annual spending is projected to hit an eye-popping $305 million.

Public Works cleanup crews were busier than ever, picking up more than 679 tons of trash from homeless tent camps since June 1, 2016, and collecting more than 100,000 used syringes from the camps in that time span.

But, despite all the money and effort, reality on the streets hasn’t improved. In many ways, homelessness in San Francisco is as bad as ever . . . .

http://www.sfchronicle.com/aboutsfga...d-11242946.php

Think of that: $305 million/7499 = $40,672 spent per homeless person per year . . . and yet, the problem "is as bad as ever". I'd say worse than I've ever seen it in 35 years.

That the city spends $40,000 of each of these people every year suggests they could easily rent a studio apartment for each of them and voila! No more homeless IF simply not having a home were actually the problem. But it clearly isn't.

Niether is a lack of mental health treatment. San Francisco may be one of the few cities in the US that runs an extensive system of public neighborhood health centers whose services include mental health care such as supplying the mentally ill with needed medication as well as other forms of therapy: https://www.sfdph.org/dph/comupg/ose...ntalHlth/CBHS/

I would argue San Francisco does everything the law allows to help the homeless but what it doesn't do is enforce any sort of standard of public behavior. There are laws against lying on sidewalks, obstructing sidewalks, use of many drugs favored by the homeless, indecent exposure (I once witnessed a homeless man strip completely naked in McDonald's dining room), obscene public behavior including defecation and so on. But there is absolutely no will to enforce them, either by the police or by the district attorney.

Most San Franciscans have just gotten used to all this and walk by acting as if nothing is worth notice or surprising. It's just the way things are and nothing is likely to change it.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I suspect San Francisco is in competition for the worst case of this problem.


http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uplo...AL-6.21.17.pdf

But these persons aren't simply homeless. Many of them are mentally ill and/or severely substance abusing. And also they are anti-social in their attitude and behavior. Possibly this is a manifestation of resentment toward society and the housed because of their condition. I can't say, but it is manifested as breaking all manner of laws and rules about public behavior in ways that aren't actually necessary fromdefecating in the middle of busy streets in mid-afternoon (there are plenty of secluded places they could do this) to sprawling on busy sidewalks shooting up to blocking those sidewalks with tents and other camping gear such that they are impassable, forcing even the disabled into the street to get around them.

Why can't we do anything about it is the question of the year.


http://www.sfchronicle.com/aboutsfga...d-11242946.php

Think of that: $305 million/7499 = $40,672 spent per homeless person per year . . . and yet, the problem "is as bad as ever". I'd say worse than I've ever seen it in 35 years.

That the city spends $40,000 of each of these people every year suggests they could easily rent a studio apartment for each of them and voila! No more homeless IF simply not having a home were actually the problem. But it clearly isn't.

Niether is a lack of mental health treatment. San Francisco may be one of the few cities in the US that runs an extensive system of public neighborhood health centers whose services include mental health care such as supplying the mentally ill with needed medication as well as other forms of therapy: https://www.sfdph.org/dph/comupg/ose...ntalHlth/CBHS/

I would argue San Francisco does everything the law allows to help the homeless but what it doesn't do is enforce any sort of standard of public behavior. There are laws against lying on sidewalks, obstructing sidewalks, use of many drugs favored by the homeless, indecent exposure (I once witnessed a homeless man strip completely naked in McDonald's dining room), obscene public behavior including defecation and so on. But there is absolutely no will to enforce them, either by the police or by the district attorney.

Most San Franciscans have just gotten used to all this and walk by acting as if nothing is worth notice or surprising. It's just the way things are and nothing is likely to change it.

Multiply the SF problem by 10 and now you're approaching what we're dealing with in LA. These aren't "homeless" people . These are either mentally ill, drug addicts, criminals or people that shun society. Nowadays A very small portion of street people are truly there due to financial reasons. One major source not being mentioned enough is the passage of prop 47 and 57 that reduced many crimes from felonies to misdemeanors and released a shit load of criminals on to the streets early.

Anyways, this problem will only get worse in other west coast cities as crackheads and bums from around the country find out that our governments are helpless and can't do anything about truly ending this problem. The ACLU and homeless advocates sue any attempt to enforce laws against these worthless people and we have to deal with it.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I suspect San Francisco is in competition for the worst case of this problem.

Think of that: $305 million/7499 = $40,672 spent per homeless person per year . . . and yet, the problem "is as bad as ever". I'd say worse than I've ever seen it in 35 years.

That the city spends $40,000 of each of these people every year suggests they could easily rent a studio apartment for each of them and voila! No more homeless IF simply not having a home were actually the problem. But it clearly isn't.

Niether is a lack of mental health treatment. San Francisco may be one of the few cities in the US that runs an extensive system of public neighborhood health centers whose services include mental health care such as supplying the mentally ill with needed medication as well as other forms of therapy: https://www.sfdph.org/dph/comupg/ose...ntalHlth/CBHS/

I would argue San Francisco does everything the law allows to help the homeless but what it doesn't do is enforce any sort of standard of public behavior. There are laws against lying on sidewalks, obstructing sidewalks, use of many drugs favored by the homeless, indecent exposure (I once witnessed a homeless man strip completely naked in McDonald's dining room), obscene public behavior including defecation and so on. But there is absolutely no will to enforce them, either by the police or by the district attorney.
Most San Franciscans have just gotten used to all this and walk by acting as if nothing is worth notice or surprising. It's just the way things are and nothing is likely to change it.

I don't want to turn this too political, except to count politics as one factor. Isn't this a result of extreme 'progressive' policy, meaning the lack of enforcement of those laws on the books?

For most people that visit 'the city', its startling and very disappointing. One of the most stunning physical locations and combination of urban environment and physical geography and there is a faction of people that do not have the will to control a real problem, even with tremendous amounts of money being thrown at the problem. The police do what they are told to do.

[dubu]

I’m glad one of my friends isn’t homeless there anymore. I’ve been homeless and it was crappy. I’ve had enough of being real hot and real cold in my life. Now days with Facebook you can get a hold of people. But some people don’t have any family or anything.

[Sun Belt]

Weather is definitely not the reason why there are homeless in high numbers in Portland, unless they prefer being damp and living in wet conditions for 8 months out of the year.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Weather is definitely not the reason why there are homeless in high numbers in Portland, unless they prefer being damp and living in wet conditions for 8 months out of the year.

Not to sure about that. Relatively speaking compare Portland to Chicago or even Dallas.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Weather is definitely not the reason why there are homeless in high numbers in Portland, unless they prefer being damp and living in wet conditions for 8 months out of the year.

there's a pretty significant difference between being damp and uncomfortable in portland and literally freezing to death in chicago.

portland has a mild enough climate where one can get away without ever needing proper heated shelter.

in chicago, on a dark frigid january night, shelter isn't optional. you either get inside somewhere or you die.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

there's a pretty significant difference between being damp and uncomfortable in portland and literally freezing to death in chicago.

portland has a mild enough climate where one can get away without ever needing proper heated shelter.

in chicago, on a dark frigid january night, shelter isn't optional. you either get inside somewhere or you die.

For sure. Why be cold and wet when you can be warm and dry? Portland is probably better than Chicago, but is it better than Southern California? A homeless guy in Portland could escape to a more ideal location in the same way that a homeless guy in Chicago would in theory, flee the cold and move to the Pacific Northwest.

A sociologist or geographer - whomever - should study migration patterns of America's homeless. Where are they coming and going. Are they mobile or do they chose to squat within their home region? How long on average do they live on the streets? How long do they set up camp in a foreign city. Why did they chose that city? and so on.

It's life and death in Chicago during an arctic outbreak. Chicago still has nearly 6,000 homeless people in shelters and on the streets. Maybe Chicago is constantly churning out homeless that ultimately move south and west as shelters remain at capacity, with their overall population count remaining around 6,000 in the city?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

A sociologist or geographer - whomever - should study migration patterns of America's homeless. Where are they coming and going. Are they mobile or do they chose to squat within their home region? How long on average do they live on the streets? How long do they set up camp in a foreign city. Why did they chose that city? and so on.

i really don't have any idea to what degree chronically homeless people migrate around the country.

i was only trying to point out that year-round homelessness is a MUCH easier lifestyle choice to make in a city like portland than it is in a city like chicago.

one can get by just fine for a good long while without shelter in chicago, but january always looms, and it's a life and death kind of seriousness, not just a "it's damp and chilly" deal.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i really don't have any idea to what degree chronically homeless people migrate around the country.

i was only trying to point out that year-round homelessness is a MUCH easier lifestyle choice to make in a city like portland than it is in a city like chicago.

one can get by just fine for a good long while without shelter in chicago, but january always looms, and it's a life and death kind of seriousness, not just a "it's damp and chilly" deal.

it appears that they migrate west and southwest on an almost continual basis out of the midwest. i see tons of hitchhikers on I-70 going west and I-44 going southwest in the autumn. i also see huge amounts of them in southern cities in winter. i think i remember being in nashville last winter and there was a big fire set under the interstate by homeless and remember seeing the plume of smoke...the encampments in disused spaces really swell. i've seen big camps under interchanges in atlanta around new years. florida can get pretty intense mid winter.

[destroycreate]

The SF situation for me got so bad it was definitely a factor for me moving away in 2015. Seattle has a homeless problem but it's far more contained. Perhaps it's because I lived in SoMa, but I was just not down with the rampant lawlessness and disgusting behavior that SFPD turns a blind eye to. Finding someone shooting up in my car, getting my car broken into 8x in 6 years, feeling physically threatened on MUNI all too often got super old. The homeless in SF are much more aggressive and unstable than anywhere else I've visited. My heart goes out to them, but at the end of the day, when it comes to substance abuse, you to take responsibility for your own life--you have to want to get better. Now for the mental illness component--FUCK REAGAN (and capitalism). We need more mental health resources all around in this country that are free or affordable.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Now for the mental illness component--FUCK REAGAN (and capitalism). We need more mental health resources all around in this country that are free or affordable.

I’ve posted something like this many times on this site in different contexts but here we go again: The “Reagan did it” theory is by now an almost universally believed myth but much of it is a myth and San Francisco is the proof by exception.

The myth says Reagan caused the problem—some argue nationwide on absolutely no basis at all—because during his time as Governor of California the state mental hospitals were largely closed and the patients turned out. The myth says this was entirely to save money but in reality there was a confluence of reasons that appealed to both the right and the left. Saving money definitely did appeal to the right. But the civil liberties concerns related to keeping people who’d committed no crime locked up involuntarily appealed to the left. What made consensus possible was the development for the first time of truly effective drugs for both schizophrenia and depression. For the former there was Thorazine, Melaril, Stelazine and others. For the latter there was Elavil and othe tricyclics. These drugs teally did make large numbers of deeply psychotic people functional and so the politicians were convinced they could release them on medication and continue treatment as outpatients . . . Which might have worked to some degree if a network of outpatient treatment centers adequate to the job had been funded and if there had been a mechanism to forcibly medicate those who would not or could not voluntarily seek and take medication.

But as I said, I think San Francisco shows that this plan probably could never have worked because San Francisco DOES have facilities for outpatient treatment of the mentally ill and does extensive outreach to find them and try to get them into treatment, yet its streets are still overflowing with mumbling madmen (and women) who have no willingness to be treated.

Still, it just wasn’t all Reagan’s fault in California—he just eagerly bought into the hope along with legislators on both ends of the political spectrum—and he had nothing to do with other states where almost the exact same factors brought about the same result.

As it happens, I was in medical school and post-grad training as all this was happening and actually worked for a few months in an old style state mental hospital in North Carolina while such existed. In that sense, I’ve seen the before and after and watched the transition.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

The SF situation for me got so bad it was definitely a factor for me moving away in 2015. Seattle has a homeless problem but it's far more contained. Perhaps it's because I lived in SoMa, but I was just not down with the rampant lawlessness and disgusting behavior that SFPD turns a blind eye to. Finding someone shooting up in my car, getting my car broken into 8x in 6 years, feeling physically threatened on MUNI all too often got super old. The homeless in SF are much more aggressive and unstable than anywhere else I've visited. My heart goes out to them, but at the end of the day, when it comes to substance abuse, you to take responsibility for your own life--you have to want to get better. Now for the mental illness component--FUCK REAGAN (and capitalism). We need more mental health resources all around in this country that are free or affordable.

Why fuck Reagan? Haven't Clinton and obama , totalling 16 years, had enough time to fix how bad he made things? This is like the most common thing I hear when people speak of mental health and politics yet noone likes to admit their progressive "allies" have done zero to address the issue. So fuck them all?

[IMBY]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

The SF situation for me got so bad it was definitely a factor for me moving away in 2015. Seattle has a homeless problem but it's far more contained. Perhaps it's because I lived in SoMa, but I was just not down with the rampant lawlessness and disgusting behavior that SFPD turns a blind eye to. Finding someone shooting up in my car, getting my car broken into 8x in 6 years, feeling physically threatened on MUNI all too often got super old. The homeless in SF are much more aggressive and unstable than anywhere else I've visited. My heart goes out to them, but at the end of the day, when it comes to substance abuse, you to take responsibility for your own life--you have to want to get better. Now for the mental illness component--FUCK REAGAN (and capitalism). We need more mental health resources all around in this country that are free or affordable.

If more people would equivocate addictions, as addictions are addictions are addictions, there'd be more understanding of why some of these people can't turn it around.

Like I said to my pulmonologist when, diagnosed with COPD, and after cutting down to a half-pack a day, he said: You need to quit! And my response: Give me your car keys, from this day forward you will not drive a car anymore, you're going to give up this very dangerous addiction to driving/owning a car. Next time I come here, I want to see your bus pass!

I read of a company out east, who had to reject 50% of its applicants, for merely not passing a drug test, jobs paid roughly $13 an hour. And did they test them for pharmaceutical drugs or alcohol usage?

The obstacles to getting off the streets today can be formidable. This wouldn't be happening in Japan, with its chronic shortage of labor, due to their resistance to bringing in immigrants, 1.2 applicants per job. Now! How many obstacles do they throw in the way of these 1.2 applicants, employers starving for workers?